Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - diesel guy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: February 04, 2009, 06:11:48 AM »
I’ve been away for a few days, here’s what it comes down to. A little background about me that was never spoken here and helps explain my point of view.

I have many Patents granted and Patents applied for and Provisional Patent Applications applied in the following fields:

I designed and patented, an extremely fast Sterilization system (45 seconds, worlds fastest to date) for Med Units for domestic and military use. It uses a sterilizing chamber, cryogenic liquid nitrogen system, vacuum pump, quartz heating element and a vacuum controller expansion valve. Liquid nitrogen kills only about 85% - 90% of micro organisms, I place equipment into the chamber then close, a vacuum draws the chamber down to 1/10 of an astrosphere at the same time a quartz heating element heats an air tank, when the vacuum reaches 1/10 of an astrosphere the cryogenic liquid is drawn through the expansion valve, this increases the evaporation rate of the liquid nitrogen, producing even lower temperatures in the vacuum, sterilizing the components, then the heated air is injected into the chamber to rapidly raise the temperature, an infrared sensor detects the internal temperature of the equipment until it reaches room temperature, then the door automatically opens.

I designed and patented, an anti-roll/flywheel energy storage system for sport utility vehicles, which uses counter rotating moveable permanent magnet rotors, computer controlled split stators and gyroscopic sensors, that sense the vehicle’s angle and acceleration of roll and the information from the gyroscopic sensors is processed to manipulates the magnetic field from the split stators to the moveable permanent magnet counter rotating rotors, converting the stored kinetic energy potential into a downward twist in the opposite direction of the roll to reduce rollover susceptibility. It operates as a electrical storage system (battery) in normal driving.

I have two patents applied for and worked 9 years on an advanced Maglev train research lab perfecting and comparing Linear Induction motors and Linear synchronous motors. Advantages, disadvantages. Using advanced 3-D models and simulations to calculate structural integrity and alter the design where required, then use advanced 3-D models and simulations to perform complete power requirements calculations for the propulsion, lift, guidance and all on board electronics, then use advanced 3-D models and simulations to calculate the capabilities. The finished product was an advanced 3-D simulation with all the thermal and dynamic forces produced by the train.

I also have one patented and one patent applied for in wind turbines. They use a special variable flux density permanent magnet alternator. This system enables wind speed to automatically control the amount flux to the stators from the permanent magnet rotor/s and eliminates the need for a turbine blade pitch control system. This advanced alternator allows the turbine blades to operate at maximum tip speed at the widest wind velocity range by precise flux control simular to an electromagnet design with the increased efficiency of a permanent magnet design.

I also have one patented and three patent applied for in Heavy Hybrid propulsion systems. I spoke to Bob about one of these in the past. My designs offer very high power densities and fuel efficiency. There are four types of hybrids today, Series, Parallel, Series - Parallel and Hydraulic. I have one for each design. I can’t display details of my unique designs as I have International Patents being applied for.

This leads me up to the engines in the forum. The Series hybrid propulsion system that I developed uses “generators” to power electric motors placed in the driveline. We have used independent university studies to enable us to build the most reliable, powerful and fuel efficient system, to date. Generators that run at 1,800 rpm have an X amount of stored kinetic energy within the rotor and flywheel. Our engines operate between 1,400 and 1,800 rpm when over the road highway speeds and 1,200 rpm in low output mode and 900 rpm in stop and go mode. When the engine speed is slowed to 1,200 rpm the programmed horsepower is set at “½” of 1,800 rpm, this allows the engine to maintain proper X amount of stored kinetic energy potential.

When the engine speed is slowed to 900 rpm, the programmed horsepower is set at “½” of 1,200 rpm, this also allows the engine to maintain proper X amount of stored kinetic energy potential.  So even if an engine could power more than that rating, engine wear would be “dramatically increased from the lack of stored potential”. This is stored potential imperative because we are using highly efficient medium duty engines in a heavy duty class, which is achievable, if excessive amount of stored kinetic energy potential is maintained.

For instance, if you were driving a car with a standard transmission and in 4th gear at low speed approaching a hill and you pressed the accelerator, instead of downshifting. The engine would start to lug. Do you know what causes the lug? It happened when the engines output torque “exceeds” the stored kinetic energy capability of the flywheel and begins to “hammer” the pistons, rods and mains. When you down shift, the engine torque is multiplied so less output torque is needed and the engine speed is increased, so stored kinetic energy within the flywheel again exceeds the engines torque output and the engine smoothens out, so the engine can safely produce greater output power without damaging the engine.

The 12/2 operating at 325 rpm has ¼ the stored kinetic energy potential as operating at 650 rpm. So how can one think an engine can make a level of torque and not address this important requirement, you can’t. Lister designed these engines so the flywheels stored potential was never exceeded, that’s where you get reliability. The 12/2 at 325 rpm is like taking off both cast iron flywheels, and make two lightweight flywheels out of aluminum and there mass would equal ¼ the total of the two cast iron flywheels. Now run the engine at 650 rpm and put it at “full load” with ¼ the stored potential, the engine will come apart in short order. That is exactly what this person is doing to the 12/2 at 325 rpm, but the torque would be much lower.

Bob you state: “hp to rpm on these engines is surprisingly linear to a point, until
you get outside the geometry and spring that controls the governor”.

You are correct when you talk about 500 rpm and above, but lower and it is a whole new ball game. You need torque to produce a liner hp output. You need hp to produce Kw. Hp is the amount of work done in a given time, so how can the hp output be liner when the torque output and the rpm “drop together” under 500 rpm? Therefore it is not liner.

Bob you state: “take for instance an 855 cummins, they are built from ~230hp all the way to at least 475hp all the same engine, same block and same crank there are also the old formula engines that had a deep torque curve and all sorts of variants”

That also is correct, but if you pushed these engines hard for an extended time at low rpm they will come apart and that is a fact. The only way to increase engine life when an engine is working at maximum load at low speed (900-1,200 rpm) is to install an “extra” heavy flywheel, plus retard timing and lower compression.  Me and a few friends built three Cummins 855’s for drag racing, so I know the engine quite well. They are very fast engines, all had 6 speed Allison transmissions in them, 13 - 15 second trucks.

Oliver90owner you stated: Not looked at the power curves but to suggest that these slow revving engines have an exponential power curve is fairly wide of the mark. Power from uprated engines (increased speed) does not seem to bear that out. On that basis a 12/2 should be about 10HP at 500RPM and maybe around 7HP at 350RPM.

Is that so? “I have the power curve of a 10/2”. These are the exact figures: a 12/2 is a 10/2 but operates at 650 rpm and the 10/2 operates at 600 rpm. At 650 rpm = 12 hp, at 600 rpm = 10 hp, at 500 rpm = 8 hp. But don’t read totally into these numbers, “the torque curve rises after 600 rpm”. If you operate “under” 500 rpm, the power will fall rapidly and the power is far from liner and on a downward spiral. So you power esimates are far from accurate.

oliver90owner you stated: “Your assumptions may hold better for higher speed engines where they run 'off the cam' once below maximum torque. Modern engines, short stroke, low torque. The 'brain' of the engine is the cam”.

You are exactly correct about the cam as the brain of the engine but you have it totally backwards. We’ll take Bob’s 855 Cummins with a torque peak of 1,200 - 1,400 rpm. The proper engine speed when cruising down the highway is 1,450 rpm - 1,650 rpm. When a hill comes up and the engine begins to loose rpm, the engines torque “increases” as it “fall onto the cam”. The operator needs to downshift to elevate the internal pressures to maximize engine/transmission life. 

Now the so called “low speed’ 12/2 that everyone thinks is liner, the profile don’t “come on the cam" until guess what? 600 rpm and this is the “beginning of the torque rise” and pulls on up, then flattens out and then falls. Therefore when you operate below the set torque curve in a mechanical engine, vacuum will be dramatically reduced and “torque and vacuum” go hand in hand. So any engine speed under 600 rpm, is operating “off the cam” and will have exponentially diminishing power output as speed falls.

How do I know? Because I have been designing and cutting my own cam grinds for 25+ years in gas and diesel engines and fully understand the working dynamics of internal combustion engines and you kind of get the hang of it after a while.

About three months ago I spoke to Xyzer just about this subject. I have exactly calculated two cam grinds that moves the torque curve down to approximately 475 rpm and 350 rpm. My cam grinds (I call them the Chugger series) produce the maximum vacuum and appropriate cylinder pressure needed to meet the exact torque curve displayed. Also, it would be mandatory for the flywheel mass to be increased proportional to the torque increase so the stored kinetic energy within the flywheels always exceeds the engine torque by a reasonable margin. I will have one or both of these cams installed by next Winter on my 14/1 and 16/1.

I’m going to finish my prototype Heavy Series hybrid System for display and I can’t be distracted by this any more. You people have been a great help when I was perfecting my system and I’m shutting down and back to the grid. Everyone new here should listen to these experts and learn from them as I have done. See you next year. God bless.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: February 01, 2009, 03:47:17 AM »
I hate to be the bad guy here, but those numbers displayed from sara’s 12/2, don’t add up.

I’ll start out with this:

If a diesel generator made 20 KW at 1800 rpm. The same engine would made about 50% of that rating at 1,200 rpm, 10 KW. The same engine would make 50% again that rating at 900 rpm, 5 KW. That is pretty consistent in general diesel engine capabilities.

Notice the KW capabilities decline rapidly as the engine approaches idle speed and they are not even operating done to idle speeds as sara’s 12/2.

This rapid decline is because the engines torque curve is not linear like an electric motor and uses much of its capability to overcome internal forces drag, compression, ect. at low speeds. There is little left to produce usable electrical output.

For example, a 12/2 operates at 650 rpm and produces 12 hp, 6 KW. A 10/2 operates at 600 rpm and produces 10 hp, 5 KW. Notice they are the same basic engine and with a reduction of only 50 rpm lost 2 hp, 1 KW.

That is because it is following the same downward power capability as demonstrated in the 1,800 rpm generator above and all engines follow.

Now if the 12/2 engine speed is reduced to about 450 rpm, it would produce about 50% of the 650 rpm rating, 6 hp, 3 KW maximum. If the engine speed is further reduced to half the 650 rpm - 325 rpm, it can only put out about 3 hp, 1.5 KW maximum.

Therefore, my first power estimates were accurate when I said the engine would put out about 3-4 hp and I was given it some.

So when sara if getting 2.5 KW continuous, 5 hp and 3.5 KW, 7 hp blowing black smoke. I don’t think so.  ???  ???  ???  ???

I sorry sara but I”ll say it again, “you are full of it” and your not fooling everyone and I’m all done with you and this subject.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 31, 2009, 02:26:36 AM »
Jens your absolutely right about that.

What I'm saying is that is not the “correct numbers”. The engine speed would swing much further than 5 cycles at the stated low RPM. It would be all over the place and the governors reaction time from the loads engaging and disengaging would be atrocious.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 31, 2009, 02:14:16 AM »

The continuous power needed would be in the order of 5 HP with a 2.5 kw load and 7 HP with a 3.5 kw load. Your engine speed with the pulley ratio you stated is 345 RPM at 60 cycles. Your electrical appliances would need replacement in short order from such “poor frequency regulation” not the voltage.

What it comes down to is "I worked many hours with these engines” and know what they can do and can not do. I simply don’t believe your statements at all. 

Have a good day.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:07:50 PM »

You show me one Lister type that can do 100,000 hours or 1/3 that.

Don't confuse a Lister to a Lister type. They are NOT A LISTER and I am positive my wording is 1,000 % accurate in past post.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:02:04 PM »
There is NO comparison from a 12/2 running at 325 rpm vs. a 6/1 running at 650 rpm, period. You are lucky to produce a useable 3-4 hp from the stated 325 rpm and I'm giving it some.

The 6/1 at 650 rpm will have 4 times the stored kinetic energy potential than the 12/2 at 325 rpm, for surge capability.

Frequency regulation would be "unusable" at 325 rpm in an AC application, with zero surge capability.

There also could be some lubrication problems when operating at 325 rpm for an extended period.

Lister states the 6/1 can start working at 500 rpm and produce 4 hp and no lower rpm is offered.

If 325 rpm was better than 650 rpm, Lister would of offered it.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 29, 2009, 08:24:34 PM »
I know everyone here knows my option by now, with a single vs. a twin. Many people make the mistake of thinking the engines mass is directly related in how long the engine will last and in "most" cases this is fact.

I have an older model Isuzu LB1 3 cylinder engine, (with a cast iron block and head, new ones have an aluminum block) as my heavy duty backup system, to my 14/1 and 16/1. With an Amsoil bypass system on it and marine exhaust manifold for rapid warm ups and conventional radiator.

Like this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/24hp-Isuzu-3LB1-Diesel-Marine-Engine-NOS_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742Q2em153Q2el1262QQcategoryZ50441QQihZ024QQitemZ370107138725

This engine weighs under 300 lbs. plus the generator and I would bet anyone this little 1,124 cc engine can outlast any Lister type engine between rebuilds, three times over. Don't get me wrong, I love my big singles.

But I have been working with engines "many years" and the point I'm trying to rely is that, not always the engines mass will dictate how long an engine will last. There are other contributing factors that have to be considered, such as how well the block, head and internal components are made.

My 14/1 and 16/1 will need a rebuild before a 6/1 would, but they will surely outlast a twin between rebuilds and can be done in an afternoon, at half the price.

That triple cylinder engine shown, I don't know much about. They may not possess the problems the twin Lister types have and might be very robust. If I had no choice but to pick a a high powered diesel engine beyond the singles,

I would use this proven engine hands down :  

Look where the maximum torque occurs,1,000 rpm. Put a 6 pole Marathon alternator on it with its 100,000 hour bearings, makes for a "bulletproof 1,200 rpm genset".

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 26, 2009, 06:49:25 PM »

Bump clearance is similar to injection timing, there is no one setting that is perfect. I wanted to keep the bump clearance and slightly retarded injection timing conservative for maximum durability at an expense of some fuel economy.

If the engine is used for standby use, you can get away with a tighter bump clearance and advanced timing for maximum fuel economy, with reduced durability.

I set the bump clearance somewhere around .035 on the 14/1 when reassembled, the pump timing is set at 16 degrees BTDC.

The 14/1 is a Power Solutions ( Jkson) and the 16/1 is a Metro.

Here is 14/1 specs similar to the Jkson:



Here is the 16/1 similar to the Metro:


Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 25, 2009, 06:36:12 AM »
One more thing, both singles have the extra heavy, large diameter 23.6" 1,000 rpm flywheels, the highest kinetic energy storage potential possible for a Lister type.

Not nearly as good as the legendary Start O Matic flywheels. But greater than the twins light 23.6" 650 - 850 rpm flywheels and heavy 20" 1,000 rpm flywheels.

Longer stroke per displacement and greater kinetic energy storage potential allows the 14/1 and 16/1 to compete with the small twins, with less fuel.

Diesel Guy

Listeroid Engines / Re: Which would you choose????
« on: January 25, 2009, 06:01:14 AM »

I don't have a twin and I never will. I don't have anything against the twins if they are used for standby use. But I like to have a generator that can run 24/7, need little work to keep operational and provide the highest fuel economy figures possiable.

That is why I will only run 14/1's and 16/1's. They allow me to have the power of a small twin, with reduced headaches and reliability problems. They have xyzer's offset bolts and hollow dippers, I also installed bronze idler gears.

They have less displacement than the twins but there is something to said about a longer stroke per engine displacement, 5.12 x 5.79 on the 14/1 and 5.12 x 6.3 on the 16/1. The longer stroke singles produce more torque per engine displacement than the shorter stroked twins.

They need to operate at a slightly higher rpm to produce the same given HP output of the twins, but this provides greater stored kinetic energy potential and the greater torque per displacement ratio enables the engine to maintain a more constant rpm level when heavy loads are engaged, with maximum fuel efficiency (the fuel savings alone is substantial when in 24/7 mode). There is also half the loading pressures on the idler gear from a single to a twin.

I know there are people here who would totally disagree with me and I fully understand. I think a offgrid/survival engine should be as simple of a device as it can be, to be the most reliable/durable it can be and produce the work needed to be done, with the least amount of fuel consumed.

Diesel Guy

General Discussion / Re: I'm Rich!!!
« on: January 14, 2009, 08:46:44 PM »
This person wishes he had seen through his BS email.


Diesel Guy

Everything else / Re: Battery Terminal Goop!
« on: January 01, 2009, 06:33:48 PM »
I' with Tom and RAB. I used Vaseline for years and it's works great. I leave a 1/4" layer over the entire post and terminals.

Diesel Guy



Thant is a great question. I use diesel 911 in my tanks to keep the fuel thin at extreme temps.

About changing an IDI engine into a DI engine, you would also need to change the piston to a direct injected design and maybe re balance the flywheels if the indirect injected piston is cast iron.

Diesel Guy

The lowest I started my direct injected 14/1 was -14 degrees F. It started first compression stroke, it always starts first compression stroke (no matter what temp). The timing is spot on and I keep the engine always fresh.

That is the advantages of the greater heat retention of the direct injected engine design vs. an indirect injected engine design. If you want a full mechanical engine without electrical assistance, you can change to a direct injected head and change the studs.

Diesel Guy

Original Lister Cs Engines / Re: Got it!!!!!!
« on: December 09, 2008, 06:53:00 PM »

Years back I also looked into a VW diesel engine to make a homemade power plant. I see that it works out for you but what steered me away from this engine was the timing belt. I had a 2001 VW Jetta as a beater car and it had an automatic trans.

It had a smaller timing belt than the standard trans. because the auto trans needed more room up front so they made a thinner belt and needed replacement every 36,000 miles. We put 82,000 miles on the original belt and sold it. 

Diesel Guy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10